3 ms·

Using the term "disinfo" for "accurate but incomplete info" seems like an Orwellian misuse of the term. Are there any credible sources indicating that Wikileak

by cwkoss 5y ago

Using the term "disinfo" for "accurate but incomplete info" seems like an Orwellian misuse of the term. Are there any credible sources indicating that Wikileaks selectively edited or chose what to publish based on political goals? I think they have some sort of process to validate legitimacy of leaks before they publish them, but I've never heard claims that they intentionally edited or chose not to leak information for Wikileaks own political goals. Certainly possible that Russia leaked true-but-incomplete information to Wikileaks, but isn't, like, all discussion of reality true-but-incomplete? Edit: Sibling thread found a claim of selective editing I was not previously aware of. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r...

meroes 5y ago
I view the GRU stealing private data and using Wikileaks to coordinate releasing for the purpose of sowing discord and possibly to help Trump win the election as disinfo. > After the Soviet term became widely known in the 1980s, native speakers of English broadened the term as "any government communication (either overt or covert) containing intentionally false and misleading material, often combined selectively with true information, which seeks to mislead and manipulate either elites or a mass audience."[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation - March 16: Internal WikiLeaks messages indicate the purpose of the archive is to annoy Clinton and establish WikiLeaks as a "resource/player" in the election.[29]:44–45 - June 14: The GRU uses its @dcleaks_ persona to reach out to WikiLeaks and offer to coordinate the release of sensitive information about Clinton, including financial documents.[353][29]:45 - June 22: WikiLeaks reaches out to "Guccifer 2.0" via Twitter. They ask "Guccifer 2.0" to send them material because it will have a bigger impact if they publish it. They also specifically ask for material on Clinton they can publish before the convention.[256] I'm not saying Assange is guilty of any crimes, or doctored evidence. But Wikileaks had an agenda beyond "the facts". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#cite_note-MuellerReportAssangeSmearedDailyBeast-20190418-353 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interferen...
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Even if selection of information released is determined 100% by bias, I still think it's dangerous and bad for society to label accurate information releases as "disinfo" I think the >containing intentionally false and misleading material portion of the definition is crucial. By all means, call it foreign election interference or a foreign propaganda campaign. But in my opinion, accurate information can never be 'disinfo'. I think this is a slippery slope towards discrediting all information that embarrasses or threatens the state: whistleblowers, investigative reporting on war crimes and corruption, etc.
  - sdenton4 5y ago
    You can mislead with true information, selectively given. It fits the definition.
splithalf 5y ago
Is Hillary Clinton and CNN a credible source? https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-exclusive-documents/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-excl...
sdenton4 5y ago
This is like saying the definition of malevolent hacking does not include social engineering or phishing. You can try to define away the problem, but you're going to have some wide-open holes in your defenses as a result. [on edit:] And the second point is that Wikileaks, as free-speech ideologues, didn't actually NEED to be explicitly complicit to act as a vector for psyops. If you know your opponent is going to throw rock every time, you can win by throwing paper every time. If you're a Fancy Bear and know that Wikileaks will publish whatever you give them, then you can selectively choose what to hand them.

by cwkoss 5y ago

meroes 5y ago

I view the GRU stealing private data and using Wikileaks to coordinate releasing for the purpose of sowing discord and possibly to help Trump win the election as disinfo. > After the Soviet term became widely known in the 1980s, native speakers of English broadened the term as "any government communication (either overt or covert) containing intentionally false and misleading material, often combined selectively with true information, which seeks to mislead and manipulate either elites or a mass audience."[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation - March 16: Internal WikiLeaks messages indicate the purpose of the archive is to annoy Clinton and establish WikiLeaks as a "resource/player" in the election.[29]:44–45 - June 14: The GRU uses its @dcleaks_ persona to reach out to WikiLeaks and offer to coordinate the release of sensitive information about Clinton, including financial documents.[353][29]:45 - June 22: WikiLeaks reaches out to "Guccifer 2.0" via Twitter. They ask "Guccifer 2.0" to send them material because it will have a bigger impact if they publish it. They also specifically ask for material on Clinton they can publish before the convention.[256] I'm not saying Assange is guilty of any crimes, or doctored evidence. But Wikileaks had an agenda beyond "the facts". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#cite_note-MuellerReportAssangeSmearedDailyBeast-20190418-353 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interferen...

cwkoss 5y ago
Even if selection of information released is determined 100% by bias, I still think it's dangerous and bad for society to label accurate information releases as "disinfo" I think the >containing intentionally false and misleading material portion of the definition is crucial. By all means, call it foreign election interference or a foreign propaganda campaign. But in my opinion, accurate information can never be 'disinfo'. I think this is a slippery slope towards discrediting all information that embarrasses or threatens the state: whistleblowers, investigative reporting on war crimes and corruption, etc.
- sdenton4 5y ago
  You can mislead with true information, selectively given. It fits the definition.

splithalf 5y ago

Is Hillary Clinton and CNN a credible source? https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-exclusive-documents/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-excl...

sdenton4 5y ago

This is like saying the definition of malevolent hacking does not include social engineering or phishing. You can try to define away the problem, but you're going to have some wide-open holes in your defenses as a result. [on edit:] And the second point is that Wikileaks, as free-speech ideologues, didn't actually NEED to be explicitly complicit to act as a vector for psyops. If you know your opponent is going to throw rock every time, you can win by throwing paper every time. If you're a Fancy Bear and know that Wikileaks will publish whatever you give them, then you can selectively choose what to hand them.